In this case, as in all criminal
prosecutions, the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence was with this
defendant when (he/she) was first presented for trial in this case. It
continues with (him/her) throughout this trial, unless and until such time as
all evidence produced here in the orderly conduct of the case, considered in the
light of these instructions of law, and deliberated upon by you in the jury
room, satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that (he/she) is guilty. The
presumption of innocence applies individually to each crime charged and it may
be overcome as to each specific crime only after the state introduces evidence
that establishes the defendant's guilt as to each crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt.1

If and
when the presumption of innocence has been overcome by evidence proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime charged, then it is the
sworn duty of the jury to enforce the law and to render a guilty verdict.2
_______________________________________________________

2 See
State v. DelValle, 250 Conn. 466, 473 n.10 (1999) (encouraging use of
this language to deter jury nullification).

Commentary

"The presumption of innocence is
not evidence . . . but instead is a way of describing the prosecution's duty to
produce evidence of guilt and to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt."
State v. Gerald W., 103 Conn. App. 784, 789 (2007). The presumption of
innocence and the reasonable doubt standard are "inextricably intertwined."
Id., 789-90 n.4; see also State v. Jackson, 283 Conn. 111, 116 (2007).

"[I]n a criminal case the term [presumption of innocence]
does convey a special and perhaps useful hint over and above the other form
of the rule about the burden of proof, in that it cautions the jury to put
away from their minds all the suspicion that arises from the arrest, the
indictment, and the arraignment, and to reach their conclusion solely from
the legal evidence adduced. In other words, the rule about burden of proof
requires the prosecution by evidence to convince the jury of the accused's
guilt; while the presumption of innocence, too, requires this, but conveys
for the jury a special and additional caution (which is perhaps only an
implied corollary to the other) to consider, in the material for their
belief, nothing but the evidence, i.e., no surmises based on the present
situation of the accused." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks
omitted.) State v. Dickson, 150 Conn. App. 637, 654, cert. granted on other
grounds, 314 Conn. 913 (2014) (rejecting defendant's request to use
"presumed to be not guilty" rather than "presumed to be innocent").